Canadian soldier killed defending our freedom

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Anyway, all polls show that the majority of Canadians do not support this mission. Do you guys really think that will change in a couple of years? Canadian troops will be coming home in 2009.

If you ask the question in a staight forward way, yes they do support the mission. The polls that indicated the negative, were missleading questions at best, at worsed, they were devised to produce an incorrect answer. I'm leaning towards the latter, seeing as it the two pols that showed the least support, were initialised by liberal leaning papers.
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
A good quote from Noam Chomsky,
"...the point of public relations slogans like "Support Our Troops" is that they don't mean anything [...] that's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody is gonna be against and I suppose everybody will be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. But its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, do you support our policy? And that's the one you're not allowed to talk about." Noam Chomsky
 

Johnny Utah

Council Member
Mar 11, 2006
1,434
1
38
A good quote from Noam Chomsky,
"...the point of public relations slogans like "Support Our Troops" is that they don't mean anything [...] that's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody is gonna be against and I suppose everybody will be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. But its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, do you support our policy? And that's the one you're not allowed to talk about." Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky is a fool and you sound like Hugo Chavez pawning off Chomsky's BS.. :rolleyes:
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
Why is Noam Chomsky a fool? You say things without backing it up. You sound like Anne Coulter.
Let's Compare Noam Chomsky to Bush.
Noam Chomsky is the Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of technology. He created the theory of generative grammer. He received his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955. Yeah, he's a fool.
George Bush admits he was an average student. He got his BA in history. Bush became a member of the Skull and Bones society. He joined the Air National Guard in 1972 and in 1974 obtained permission to end his six year service. He got caught drinking and driving and did coke. He screwed up every business he got involved in. Bush is a great person to be leading the country.
 
Last edited:

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
Great another Poll out of Quebec, like they'd fight for anything that wasn't in their self interest. Sorry didn't mean to use the word fight and Quebec in the same (gag me with a spoon) sentence. That Poll implied that Canada would use Conscription, hello the people they polled didn't even know what the GDM word meant. Canada doesn't need to conscript, never has never will outside of Weebec.

Note: Quebec and Ontario lost their special (drooling now) status peoples, BC and Alberta have now replaced Quebec and Ontario regarding population. Yee haw the west not only has a voice they can override the above. Use your power wisely BC and Alberta, remember your roots. As I click my cowboy boots together, remember the East Coast we are nice people and we like other provinces. Don't forget us like Quebec and Ontario has done in the past.
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
Sassylassie you have it wrong. BC and Alberta have not replaced Quebec and Ontario regarding population. Ontario has the biggest population in all of Canada. Combined, BC and Alberta have replaced Quebec. But you are right, the west is getting more of a voice.
 

catman

Electoral Member
Sep 3, 2006
182
4
18
If you ask the question in a staight forward way, yes they do support the mission.

Evidence please.
The polls that indicated the negative, were missleading questions at best, at worsed, they were devised to produce an incorrect answer.

Polls are always misleading when they disagree with your policy.

In the meantime, most Canadians do not support the mission. Deal with it,
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
2 more Canadians killed in attack

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/03/nato-killed.html
Is it worth it? I'm sure they love that we wear red to support them. You want to support your troops? Demand that they are brought home. Wearing red on friday does nothing. It's meaningless. The real issue is do we support the mission. Canadians don't.
Casualties by year
2006 - 31, 1 diplomat
2005 - 1
2004 - 1
2003 - 2
2002 - 4

30 died in combat, 6 by friendly fire (Americans) and 4 accidental. What's different about 2006?
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
The problem with making informed decisions on world politics as a layman, is that if you actually understand what is going on within another country you're gullible, and if you actually understand what is going on in your own country then you are either more gullible still, or your nations intelligence services are so bone-headed you're already useless.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
You actually believe anything the US government says??? You gotta be blind!

I would expect the US to lie to exaggerate Hussein's atrocities when justifying a war. I used that document to point out that even the US government knew Hussein wasn't busy killing thousands of Iraq's each year when they invaded. What the US government did was point out Hussein's atrocities out of context and without a time reference to create a misperception that Hussein was killing thousands of people each year. The post I responded to was by someone who had that misperception as do most people.

But if you want another source:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/Irq-summary-eng

Regarding supporting the troops...

Our soldiers go where they are ordered to go, whether that order makes sense or not, whether that order is in the best interest of Canada or not. It is possible to be against the mission in Afghanistan and still be supportive of the troops. Supporting the troops doesn't happen by giving a speech, wearing red or putting bumber stickers on your car.

Its done by doing something which actually supports them.

The men and women of the Canadian Forces have demonstrated time and again that they will rise to any challenge. Let your Canadian Forces members know you appreciate their service by sending a message using this monitored message board.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/Messageboard/index_e.asp



Latest information for families




Mission Information Line
If you would like to get an up-to-date situation report about any mission involving Canadians, you can call the Mission Information Line at
1-800-866-4546

This page is continually under review and will be updated as new information is received.
This page was last updated on June 17, 2004 8:05 AM

Military Family Resources Centre
Quick Links


http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/38cbg_hq/Headquarters/Family_Sp/Family_Support.htm
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Noam Chomsky is a fool and you sound like Hugo Chavez pawning off Chomsky's BS.. :rolleyes:

There are people who know what propganda is, recognize it when they see it and therefore are resistant to being manipulated by it.

Then there are people who think they are aware of propaganda, can't recognize it when they see it and are vulnerable to being manipulated.

For the most part, people who have read and understand Chomsky are in the first group.

If you find yourself agreeing with the opinions of the talking heads on the cable news.... then you are most likely in the second group.

The Verdict is In: TV News is Bad for Your Brain
[SIZE=+3]A[/SIZE] study has revealed that people who rely on television to get their news are more likely to be misinformed on the facts about Iraq, WMD's and Iraq's ties to 9/11 than those who get their news from other sources or even who don't follow the news at all.
The study polled over 3,000 people on their perceptions about international support for the Iraq War, ties of Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11, and the Discovery of WMD's in Iraq. What they found, incredibly, though not surprising, was that the more people got their news from TV, the higher the frequency of their misperceptions
Out of all the news networks, of course, Fox News ranked highest among misinformed viewers. The lowest was PBS.
Bush's support tied to misperceptions
Another angle of the poll was to group by Bush supporters or Democratic candidate supporters. Naturally, the vast majority of the misinformed were Bush supporters. This included Democrats that supported Bush.
http://americanassembler.com/issues/media/
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
earth_as_one, I agree.
If you lived in a country like The Soviet Union it would of been easy to recognize propaganda. It's the Soviet Union so obviously they are lying. But in Canada and the US, which are free countries, you think you are getting un-bias news. That's why it's harder to recognize propaganda here.

 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
The propaganda has become pretty obvious here too. Some news sources even point it out:

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
March 14, 2003

American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

A week or so later, the US launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, which most Americans supported because their perceptions had been manipulated by propaganda which linked Iraq to 9/11 and created a misperception that Iraq was known to possess a WMD threat to its neighbors and the US. As a result more than 100,000 innocent men, women and children died.

Canadians are just as misinformed by propaganda as our southern neighbors. How many of us believe that our forces in Afghanistan are fighting an enemy which "detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties"?

That's just plain BS propaganda. If you want to know why 9/11 happened, just do a survey of Muslims and Arabs. Their problem with us is isn't what we do over here in our countries, but what we do over there, in their countries.

...Public opinion polls taken in the Islamic world in recent years provide considerable insight into the roots of Muslim hostility toward the United States, indicating that for the most part, this hostility has less to do with cultural or religious differences than with US policies in the Arab world...

...The issue that arouses the most hostility in the Middle East toward the United States is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what Muslims perceive as US responsibility for the suffering of the Palestinians...

...if the United States is serious about winning the so-called “war on terror,” then resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be among its top priorities in the Middle East...

...the Bush administration’s war on terror has been a major reason for the increased hostility toward the United States. The Pew Center’s 2003 survey found that few Muslims support this war...

...Most Muslims see the US fight against terror as a war against the Islamic world...

...Bin Laden has referred to the suffering of the Palestinians and the Iraqis (especially with respect to the deaths caused by sanctions) in all of his public statements since at least the mid-1990s. His 1996 “Declaration of Jihad” is no exception. Nonetheless, it primarily focuses on the idea that the Saudi regime has “lost all legitimacy” because it “has permitted the enemies of the Islamic community, the Crusader American forces, to occupy our land for many years.” In this 1996 text, bin Laden even contends that the members of the Saudi royal family are apostates because they helped infidels fight the Muslim Iraqis in the Persian Gulf War of 1991...

...Feelings of impotence, humiliation, and rage currently pervade the Islamic world, especially the Muslim Middle East. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has exacerbated Muslim concerns about the United States. In this context, bin Laden is seen as a heroic Osama Maccabeus descending from his mountain cave to fight the infidel oppressors to whom the worldly rulers of the Islamic world bow and scrape...

http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/print.php?article=1184

But most Canadians aren't aware of the root causes of anti-west sentiment. Instead we are fed blatant misinformation like this:

...General Rick Hillier is a Newfoundlander who combined something of John Crosbie's legendary bashfulness and tact with Sheila Fraser's notorious allergy to candour and speaking out when the occasion demands it.

In other words, dropping all irony, he's a classic straight shooter, doesn't run around issues, knows his own mind and is more than willing to share a piece of it with the press, the public, and one presumes the prime minister.
He might, for all this gift of direct speech and his loathing of politically correct embroidery, be considered an anti-politician. Consider Hillier's most famous offering on the nature of the Taliban and insurgent forces in Afghanistan. I quote, "They are detestable murderers and scumbags. I'll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties."
The clarity of that statement along with its splendid vigour or phrasing is almost a milestone in Canadian public speech. A lone lamp in a long deep fog. If there's horse manure on the plate, Hillier is not going to call it mayonnaise, which is a good thing. However much the focus groups and communication strategists teach public figures to lay on the goop and smother every hard truth with soft and evasive words, they break trust with the public and in some cases with reality itself...

Rex Murphy
http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_060420.html

Canadians need to understand the difference between supporting our troops and supporting foreign policies which are not only doomed to fail, but increase anti-west hostility.
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
73
Ottawa ,Canada
Curiosity:.
Canada is an autonomous country and it is governed by the wishes of the people (isn't it?).-------------------

Love you Curiosity ,you're so funny.
 
Last edited: